I connected with Arredondo and Rucinski (1998) in this week’s readings. This is not to say that Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon’s (2014) chapters were not beneficial (Their discussion on the interpersonal skills gave me hope for a problem I am envisaging). The focus of Arredondo and Rucinski (ibid) article and my current are very similar in that both are self-directed learning oriented though mine is a self-study. The readings we have done in this course so far show that ‘Self-directed learning’ is a big issue in current supervision task (if not the main function). My understanding of the readings and class discussions in this course indicate that there is a paradigm shift from the traditional evaluation oriented supervision to the self-directed focus supervision in clinically-rich PST supervision. I think this current PST supervision orientation is the motivation of mine (if not most of us) inquiry topic. As I said earlier, their study has some commonalities with my current inquiry yet the channels to arrive at the destination differ. As they investigated the effects of using specific dialogue patterns within reflective conversations and of structured response patterns on the cognitive processes of mentors and mentees engagement in conferences to help move mentees towards self-directed learning, I am focusing on how to use post-conferencing to achieve the same target. Reflecting on their findings and my current situation in PST supervision, I can see that ‘unlearning’ is a big issue in the new paradigm of supervision. Reading the responses and some of the journal data from their participants, I could form some mental images of the struggles some of the participants in their study underwent as I am going through similar unlearning of former practices that I want to abandon. Sometimes, some of the things that I decide not to do during the post conference with my interns resurface unintentionally. I agree with the assertion of some of the mentors that, it is difficult to unlearn some of the practices that we now refer to as ‘bad practices’ though we have the wish to stop. On the issue of trust, I am in a dilemma now because of the midterm feedback I had from my interns concerning how they see how post-conference is being done this semester. My interns did the midterm evaluation of the level 2 field experience before the Spring break and we had discussion on the issues raised at seminar this week. From their responses and the discussions, I could see that most of my students have problem with me for not telling them what to do as I used to do last semester. They see the new method to be waste of time and repetitive in that we spend too much time on one issue. Most complained during the discussion that telling them what to do saves time and get them focus than me trying to let them come up with solution of their problems. They see my former practice as the best as that is what most of the supervisors of their colleagues do. But when I asked them to retell some of the solutions they had for the problems the observation data collected for post-conference revealed, most were able to say it without any difficulty. So I used the opportunity to explain the intention of the new strategy, I still cannot tell if the ‘trust’ I wish for can be achieved. As hinted earlier, Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon’s (2014) discussion on interpersonal skills was very insightful for me. I had already chosen this book as one of the helpful resources for my inquiry (selected for my annotated bibliography) due to the connection some of their topics have with my current inquiry. For example, I see the chapters for this week’s reading very helpful to helping me work on the ‘trust’ challenge I am envisaging. Reflecting on their discussion on the different modes of the interpersonal skills, I could see that these skills cannot be arranged hierarchically from best to poor as each of the have a special and unique role to play in supervision according to the context. That is, to be an effective supervisor the choice of the approach will be dependent on situation of the intern in focus and that dwelling on just one approach as a strict jacket thing would not to appropriate. Looking at my midterm feedback data and my focus of the inquiry, I see these two approaches: directive informational and collaborative behavior to be suitable. References Arredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. T. (1998). Using structured interactions in conferences and Journals to promote cognitive development among mentors and mentees. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(4), 300-327. Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, H. M. (2013). SuperVision and instructional Leadership: A developmental approach, (9th ed,). Boston: Allyn &Bacon. | |
2 Comments
3/12/2015 04:42:10 am
It is much easier for someone to tell you what to do than it is to think for yourself. Thinking requires much more intellectual and emotional energy than being told. Telling creates dependency, which is counter productive if you are trying to create self-directed learners. And yet, in the case of an emergency, telling is absolutely appropriate. You have unearthed some of the complexity of supervision and why enacting developmental supervision is so incredibly difficult.
Reply
Suzanne Roberts
3/12/2015 05:18:22 am
Thanks for sharing your experience. Given the developmental levels described by Glickman, Gordon, and Ross, Gordon I wonder which approach you feel best fits the majority of your interns. And, I wonder what are the consequences to the learning when we choose the wrong level--either too high or too low. I also wonder how specifically it is best to encourage movement from one level to the next. If they are at a point where directive informational fits their level what specific moves and strategies can I use to help move them to collaborative? Seems I have more questions than comments.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
This site is about sharing reflective blogs on Educational Issues
Archives
November 2015
Categories |